Battle of the Beltway--Woodward confronts Brooks for making up S*&t
By John Amato Sunday Jul 22, 2007 3:18pm
David Brooks does with so many pundits do....Make stuff up...Case in point...Meet the Press. Even Timmeh got a piece...
Download | play Download | play
MR. WOODWARD: And the problem, though, is, we don’t know. People can say, “Oh, it’s going to be a disaster.”
MR. BROOKS: Uh-huh.
MR. WOODWARD: I mean, you cite numbers which you have pulled out of the air of 10,000 dying. I mean, that’s—that—where does that come from?
MR. BROOKS: It’s based on this unknown. I don’t think there’s any possibility that within five years that we’re going to see a drastic diminution of violence. So we could be losing 125 Americans every month for five years.
MR. WOODWARD: I mean, that’s just...
MR. BROOKS: On the other hand...
MR. WOODWARD: ...politically impossible.
MR. BROOKS: But, but—so you think OK, get out.
MR. WOODWARD: No.
MR. BROOKS: On the other hand, if we leave...
MR. WOODWARD: Glide plane.
MR. BROOKS: Well, if we leave, we could see 250,000 Iraqis die. You had the John Burns’ quotation earlier in the program. So are we willing to prevent 10,000 Iraqi deaths a month at the cost of 125 Americans? That’s a tough moral issue, but it’s also a tough national interest issue because we don’t know what the consequences of getting out are. And the frustration of watching the debate in Washington, very few people are willing to, to grapple with those two facts, that there’s—that the surge will not work in the short-term, but getting out will be cataclysmic. And you see politicians on both sides evading one of those two facts. But you’ve got to grapple with them both.
MR. HAYES: And, and one of the things that the president said at this discussion that David was at, and I was at as well, was that he intends to make the case that, “Look, this is going to be a disaster if we get out.” He didn’t say it in exactly those terms, but he’s going to start making, in many cases, the negative case. “Look at what Iraq will look like if we leave. We have a moral obligation to the Iraqis to stay.”
MR. WOODWARD: And the problem, though, is, we don’t know. People can say, “Oh, it’s going to be a disaster.”
MR. BROOKS: Uh-huh.
MR. WOODWARD: I mean, you cite numbers which you have pulled out of the air of 10,000 dying. I mean, that’s—that—where does that come from?
MR. BROOKS: Well, A, it comes from John Burns. Second, it comes from the national intelligence...
MR. WOODWARD: Well, no, he doesn’t say 10,000.
MR. BROOKS: Well, no, no, but it talks about genocide.
MR. WOODWARD: Yeah.
MR. BROOKS: So I just picked that 10,000 out of the air.
MR. WOODWARD: OK, but that—we’ve got...
MR. RUSSERT: But, David Brooks, you, you will hear a lot of people will say, you know, “The administration has made misjudgments before about WMD, about the level of troops needed, about being greeted as liberators. They could be wrong about what would flow from a redeployment of American troops.”
MR. BROOKS: Absolutely they could be wrong. And, and so we’ve—and, and it could be that peace will break out. But I think, if you look at Iraq, you see four or five civil wars going on at once. You see Shia fighting each other. You see the Sunni-Shia thing. It could be that there’s—this is just a process they need to go through, and there’s no way we can stop it in any case. Joe Biden was very honest this week. He said it’s a moral failure if we leave, but we’re going to have to do it. That at least is grappling with the issue.
MR. RUSSERT: Steve, I want to read a quote from your book in a second.
But, Bob Woodward, last week on this program I cited a piece you wrote in The Washington Post about the head of the CIA, General Hayden, ranking threats to Iraq security, and had al-Qaeda last. Senior intelligence officials sent us a statement saying, “He was not rank ordering the causes of violence. He does not list al-Qaeda last.”
MR. WOODWARD: Well, he list—at that moment, he listed it last. And that’s, and that’s all I said. And clearly there’s a debate about whether it’s al-Qaeda, is it sectarian violence, is it criminality, is it all of these things. The point is, in, in that report, it was General Hayden saying late last year that the situation of the government governing seems irreversible. Now, that is a giant word. Irreversible, meaning we can’t change it whether, he said, in the short run or in the long run. via MTP
Login or Register to post comments.
Ok. Now I know why I no longer read Brooks or watch the talking heads.
My Bullshit-O-Meter can't handle it.
"glide plane?"
what?
Yanked that number right out of his ass, did he? As if anyone gives a damn about what he thinks.
Al Franken found a number of instances of Brooks making things up a few years back--in one of his oh-so-reasonable sounding books about the exurbs or some such he made a claim that he went to a Red Lobster, I believe, and could find nothing for less than $20 on the menu, and this Red Lobster was in the Philly area, and Franken had his guys check out all the red lobsters they could and voila, they found plenty of things for under $20. Brooks makes stuff up, and has to be fact checked. True to form, Timmeh failed to follow up on this very important made up number that Woodward busted Brooks on.
pissed off patricia @ 3:
Now,now. He made a "rectal estimate".
and he's a New York Times columnist?
OOps, should have checked my own facts. Franken cited this piece which reverses what I say above-Brooks tried to claim that in his favorite red counties he could not find an entree OVER $20 and the reporter for this piece found those at such haunts as the Red Lobster.
Red Faced, I apologize for the above. Now it is your turn Mr. Brooks.
mister mix @ 6:
Yeah. And the bad news is...he didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last nite.
.
PAID POLITICAL HACKS...
ALL FOUR OF THEM.
.
calguy, nothing wrong with making a mistake. I made one once. ;)
I dont think hs really makign facts up. He was more or less giving an estimate and a likely situation if we left. Nothing really dishonest about that, as many Americans will agree. But overall i thik David Brooks does gave a point--it's a tradeoff.
Liberal AND Proud @ 8:
what does that mean? i don't get the holiday inn comment.
Odd how the same people who said that "collateral damage", a euphemism for killing innocent men, woman and children, was an unavoidable consequence of the invasion of Iraq and we should all just get over it, are the same ones who now are so concerned about the collateral damage caused by our leaving.
RasslinGod @ 11:
no he doesn't make a good point. he makes a baseless assumption. he also ignores what death rate is right NOW among iraqis. in addition, he ignores that this is a repeat of a similar situation in vietnam which people wrongly drew the same conclusions.
mister mix @ 6:
He's the Alan Colmes of the NY Times op-ed page.
marbotty @ 2:
Yeah. What's that mean? Was it turrette's?
Wow, people "making up stuff." Sounds like some of the excuses I've heard lately. "Hay, we don't like your content, Hillary -- maybe we should put your under surveillance."
What a load. I mean who would actually believe that they could get away with spewing forth misleading information; expect the public not to respond; then shut down a subsequent discussion of that misleading information; then yank down a discussion related to that concern with the misleading information?
Why does the GOP hate America?
The people who cite "morality" as a reason to not pull out of Iraq are fooling themselves. There's other places in the world where it is as equally immoral to not be involved, such as Darfur today or Rwanda in '93, not to mention Sri Lanka or East Timor. And I've never heard anyone address the moral issues of withdrawing from Vietnam, where, coupled with the earlier insurgence into Cambodia, led to the Khmer Rouge regime.
To devalue the lives of the Iraqis who've already died, while at the same time placing an unknown number of Iraqis, who *might* die if the US withdraws, on a pedestal to showcase their moral righteousness, is to reveal a complete lack of interest in morality.
Charles @ 18:
Charles @ 18:
Nicely put.
Turk Meister @ 13:
BINGO!!!!! I alway tell my repub 'friends' A) you're a repug, don't tell me you give a damn about brown people in the first place and B) You were hot and heavy over Shock and Awe, lots of innocent Iraqis killed there.
Finalfuckingly!
Isnt it something...
LIARS AND PROPAGANDA NETWORKS ARE ALL DIRECTLY PARTICIPATING IN OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND THE COVER-UP OF CRIMES, PAST AND PRESENT.
If our soldiers and national guard were back here in the US,
they would be encircling the white house and the propaganda media companies.
Enter in Veterans....
Injured Iraq War Veterans to Sue VA Head
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070723/veterans-care-lawsuit/
RasslinGod says in post 11 above:
When you give a number of 10,000 that is suggestive of the idea that someone has made an effort to provide a detailed estimate and tried to reason what might happen. Brooks is trying to scare us and has nothing to back himself up, and Woodward to his credit exposed that. Whether you think his scenario is reasonable or not, we have to get to the reality based world where people who are hailed as wise actually back their shit up with something solid. Brooks has a history of making up stuff to bolster his theories, rather than check to see what is really there. When you are talking about the exurbs, there is not a lot at stake (see my posts 4 and 7 above). When you are given a seat to blast your views at the most notable paper in America and on popular news shows, you have got to be more responsible than this.
And you have bought the whole Brooks allure. Brooks always has this veneer of sounding reasonable! He never raises his voice, never writes polemic, always disguises his views in this smooth, reasonable sounding language. He must be one of those good thinking conservatives, right?
Not in my opinion--rather, he is just the sweetest sounding pipe of the mighty right wing Wurlitzer, and the harsh notes always come from ones labeled Ann Coulter or the like.
woodward? the bastion of truth? are you fucking with me?
"Facts" - These neocons state their theories as facts. Morons. We need to call BS every time. They have no proof that there will be increased violence. But yet the press accepts their theory as fact and demands that the Democrats provide the nation with a plan. Yet, where is the Republican's plan? Where is the Administration's plan for withdrawal?
The Iraqi people want us to leave - it is there decision to make.
IMPEACHMENT is the first step to effectively ending the WAR.
Vietnam WAR ended when Richard Nixon was put to trial.
Well Mr.David Brooks, I am struggling with the fact that If we stay in Iraq, two million Iraqis will die every month. I just pulled those figures out of my arse, like you pulled your "if we get out" figures from your arse, so mine are just as valid as yours.
Brooks talked about how bad if may be if we leave Iraq because there are currently at least five different sectarian sides killing each other in Iraq now. No one pointed out to Little White House Message Boy Brooks, that all those sectarian groups got jump started by his Chicken Hawk Neo-Con Fantasy Warrior Friends cheerleading us into their Iraqmire.
...
Timmeh's idea of balance? Brooks, Woodward, Hayes. And Woodward provided the only non-neocon voice. WTF?
Concerned AMERICAN @ 27:
Wrong on all counts. Cutting off Iraq War Funds will end the War. First step, sounds so attractive, but it is meaningless. You Stop a War Machine by refusing to refuel the goddam thing, and not by taking first steps to consider changing the driver of it.
The Vietnam War ended when Congress voted to Cut off funding it. Do your homework before making so many wrong claims.
...
Speaking of big mouths, Chris Matthews has Michael Moore on hardball. Chris the big mouth, not Moore. :)
seamus @ 30:
Both wrong.
Reinstituting the draft will end the war. ;)
can you imagine people that are supposed to be mature, sitting around and arguing about the academic death of thousands?
it is getting rather depressing looking at the mainstream media. we are looking to you to become the new mainstream media. reporting the truth as it happens on video is the easiest way to show unedited content that
nobody can deny.
it is the truth, and it will rid of us of disc jockeys like timmeh and the potato, orally and such. I for one, have never understood why someone with an education in reading would want to watch anyone else's opinion about facts? Who would care about someone telling you about what you just saw? how absurd. truth is truth, it stands up to daylight. comment does not.
They both sounded like lying a**holes to me.
Liberal AND Proud @ 32:
Wrong again. It would give the likes of Bush millions more poor young people to use as cannon fodder. The Elites will alway find a way to save their own. If Bush had the draft avaliable to him, we would now have millions of Troops in Iraq, and poised to go into Iran and Syria.
....
edit: available.
Damn hand me down fingers failed me again.
....
Charles @ 18:
I don't know - I've heard cons refer to the killing that followed our withdrawal from Vietnam as a reason to stay in Iraq. (If they had their way, I suppose our soldiers would still be dying in Vietnam.) It also comes up in the context of their "stabbed in the back by liberals" meme - as in, "we could have won in Vietnam, and prevented all that later killing, if the liberals hadn't lost the war for us." Prepare for more of that if (when) things are not instantly picture-perfect after our withdrawal from Iraq.
please decapitate me so I no longer have to listen to shit like this...please!
and it could be that peace will break out.
Only in the mind of a right wing hack would "peace" be a violent action.
You notice how the talking heads always refer to Bush vs. The Democrats? It's like they are acknowledging that the republicans don't exist or at the very least, their opinions are assumed and therefore not worth mentioning. Politically speaking, I think that's good for Democrats. Even the republicans that have broken ranks are getting no love for it.
Given how things are in Iraq right now, and given that so much of the violence is sectarian in nature, no one should expect a U.S. pullout to induce an immediate peace or the flowering of democracy.
On the other hand, what Brooks and most stay-the-coursers never explain is how a continued occupation is supposed to keep a lid on Iraq. And for how long.
Maybe 10,000 Iraqis will die if we pullout. But how many of those Iraqis will die if we stay? And how many more American soldiers in the process?
SteveinSC @ 29:
Yeah, that was my thought: Bob Woodward, the accomplished progressive.
Isn't it nice how the liberal media is helping Hayes sell his Cheney-love book by giving him exposure on so many talk shows? Who do you have to orally satisfy to get into that clique?
As to the substance, rather than the personalities: we'll leave eventually, and all the terrible results of a hasty withdrawl (cue Ysbaddaden) will happen whether we leave sooner or later. We aren't going to stabilize Iraq - we are the problem. First rule when you find yourself in a hole: stop digging.
Kudos to Timmeh for calling out Brooks (and Hayes?), "So, we should believe you now because you were so correct about the reasons for getting into this war?"
seamus @ 30:
actually you are the one who should do your homework. the impeachment of nixon came FIRST. after he was gone then they were able to process with cutting funding and all else. The first step would be to deal with bush.
The range of debate on these shows runs from 'corporate stooge' to 'fascist nitwit'. Here's one more example.
Brooks is creepy. Real creepy.
He has been wrong on everything, every step of the way - should we care what he has to say?
Brooks: "Timmeh, Tim Tim Timmeh,....Timmeh !!!!
Woodward: "Timmeh"?.................."Timmeh, Timmuh!"
Hayes: "Timmeh, Tim......Tim."
Timmeh: "Timmeh,Timmeh, Timmeh?????"
Brooks: "Timmuh !#%@$#!!!"
Woodward:................Timmeh...................
GMFORD @ 40:
I don't know. I'd rather that the Republican party was continually tied to the failure that is the Bush administration. I think the party is metaphorically trying to slip out the back while Bush is left at the bar with the tab.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/141241
this guy on democracynow said something interesting. he said "I’m not sure anymore that entire cultures cannot be sociopathic, where they refuse to see what they do to other people in other places." he's suggesting that the USA as a whole is sociopathic
One thing is certain. Our greedy, incompetent leaders have made the biggest, most awful mess anyone could have imagined - and it looks that at this point there's little we can do to help innocent Iraqis caught in the middle. While we sit in the comfort of our homes discussing what to do, Iraq descends into hell on earth. And if there's really a hell elsewhere, Bush and Cheney are surely heading that way.
Neocons didn't give a rat's patooie about the moral and ethical sensibilities of liberals (and many moderates) before the Invasion of Iraq. We were outraged at the looming scenario of death and destruction to the innocents, but they charged full-bore ahead.
Now they want to jerk our strings and make us feel guilty about what might happen if we leave Iraq. You know what I think? I'm convinced neocons are always wrong, and IMHO the best decision for everyone, especially Iraqis, is for us to get the hell out of their country.
Nobody's kidding anybody, here. It's about their resources. Neocons would gladly kill every last Iraqi with their bare hands if only they could own that oil and control the economic and political dynamics of the Middle East. What a disgusting farce.
Brooks is an enigma. He's progressive on some issues and knuckleheaded on others... he's a shining example of a nonplussed neocon:
"I'm all for it until I'm against it."
Sounds like Woodward is trying to become a journalist again.
Welcome back to the reality-based world, Bob!
w.smith @ 51:
I guess.
He sort of reminds me of the Weenie trying to fit in with the Jocks.
He forges their permission slips for them and, in return, they promise not to flush his head in the toilet.
Bush/Rumsfeld failed entirely to write any orders guarding the "tens of thousands of tons" of high-explosives & munitions in Iraq when they illegally invaded.
WHY?
• To start the genocide that Brooks wants to stop, except not with any of his family members, but with '126 Americans,' which means anyone but him and his.
Arming the enemy is treason, David.
Disarming the enemy is IMPOSSIBLE, because you already gave away the store. So put on your fatigues and get your butt over to the hell you helped start.
Because a smoking crater is all your career of treason deserves.
mister mix @ 43:
You are entitled to you own opinion, but not to your own set of facts. The war went on under Ford, and the Congress finally stopped funding it. Nixon was long gone from the scene before the Congress stopped funding the war. Try not to let your pet theories try to erase historical reality.
...
So, according to Brooks we can't leave Iraq either now, or in 5-10 years because to do so would be a "moral failure?" Is he serious?
The Moral Failure was the actions of MSM pundits like Brooks who mindlessly accepted Bush's dubious (and it turned out knowingly false) justifications for the invasion.
Whores like David Brooks just can't stop falling on their knees whenever they hear Bush's limo pull up. "New in town, sailor?"
Losing Iraq is a Moral Failure? Well, guess whose failure it is? Bush's and all the fucking tools who voted for him. All the Cheeto soaked College Republicans who have utterly failed to sign up for the great cause. Congratulations, losers. You guys own Iraq.
David Brooks is a habitual liar but gets airtime on sunday shows, PBS, and a column in the NYT. The more wrong you are, the more right you are to the media
seamus Said:
You are entitled to you own opinion, but not to your own set of facts. The war went on under Ford, and the Congress finally stopped funding it. Nixon was long gone from the scene before the Congress stopped funding the war. Try not to let your pet theories try to erase historical reality.
...
--------------------------------------------
No, the USA was largely out of combat operations before Nixon left office (he was not impeached). Pressure from Congress and the public forced Nixon's hand, but congress did not actually cut off funds before the Paris Peace Accords. And congressional objections blocked Ford's insane (if he was even serious) idea to bail out Saigon at the last minute in 1975. I was a young man at that time and these are historical facts that are not debatable.
I used to want to cut Brooks some slack because he was a "reasonable" Righty, but I've had it with him. His opening comments about how Bush is unfazed by all the disasters around him is at complete odds with Krauthammer, who was also there and who said on Inside Washington that the exact opposite was true. While I think of Krauthammer as a war crimes accomplice, I'd still take his view as more truthful than Brooks'.
What's even worse is what Brooks said on the Newshour on Friday:
"And let me say, I'm more uncertain about what to do (in Iraq) than I've ever been in this war. I really have no clue. So I almost have no judgment on what we should do, stay or go. I really am so confused."
Now there's some moral certitude for ya! This guys gets paid gobs of $ to spout BS like this? Amazing.
Hyperbole is being generated by both sides. Unless one of these, "WE MUST DO THIS!!! OMG!! 111!! 111" characters has suddenly developed psychic powers then they dont what the fuck they are gibbering about. One side claims that the only solution is immediate withdrawl (as if theyve calculated all possible variables in their supercomputer brains) and the other side claims that if we do that, every man, woman and child in Iraq will spontaneously combust.
The truth of the matter is that magical answer that will generate the fewest deaths is unknown to us all. I mean we can guess and maybe be right but there is no calculating it.
At one point, Brooks jokes that it's unlikely that peace will break out if we redeploy. He's supposing a false dichotomy: that if the US redeploys its troops the violence will either escalate into genocide or evaporate completely. Given the current level of violence, this makes the former seem likely and the latter unlikely. But of course, there's an entire spectrum of possible levels of violence after a US redeployment. It could be that the level of violence increases, but only slightly. It's also possible that the level of violence could remain unchanged. It does seem reasonable (though not inevitable) that the violence would increase after a US redeployment, but if we accept that possibility we should next ask ourselves "how much might it increase?". As Woodward points out, we just don't know.
bubba @ 60:
-------------------------------
Yeah? We don't KNOW what will happen? Wow. Deep. Genius.
Well, we fucking know what will happen if we stay there, right?
I am willing to chance the unknown to avoid the disaster that we have now. What I also know is the guys who want us to stay there are the exact same idiots who have been wrong all along. It really isn't even a hard decision. We bug out. Bush and the Repugs get the blame. It's that simple.
David Brooks. You quote Joe Biden as saying it
"is a moral failure if we get out. And yet we must"
It is a moral failure that we WENT in the first place. And it is a moral failure for assholes like you to weigh, in your dispassionate analytical way, the deaths of a certain group of American soldiers against the deaths of a certain group of iraqis. You are truely a despicable man, David Brooks. And so is your ilk.
They just expect people to sit there and listen to the crap and not challenge them. Because that's what our folks have always done.
They are shocked now that some of our folks fight back.
[...] Clark Link to Article joe biden Battle of the Beltway–Woodward confronts Brooks for making up S* » [...]
Lets see... A. "Stay the course" - Stay in Iraq - Keep on spending $12 Billion + per week - Lose about 10 troops +++ per week - accomplish Jack-Crap (except making Bushco's buddies filthy rich and implement the initials stages of the NWO = [global slavery] ----------- OR ----------- B. Pull out of Iraq and venture into the unknown.
I choose B. -- Bring our troops home, do something about healthcare and education, do something about the deficit and immediately follow Germany's lead and implement ALT Energy models all over the US... * AND THEN! - kick the shit out of AIPAC and send them to hell where they belong, NOT UP OUR CONGRESSMEN'S, JOURNALISTS AND EDITOR'S ASSES!!!
Bush Bites @ 53 Says: ...and, in return, they promise not to flush his head in the toilet.
THAT is funny... He is sort of a neo-weeniecon with a touch of the swirly about him.
On a less momentous question, about "glide plane", I think that may be a descriptive shorthand for a redeployment and withdrawal plan allowing for a long, smooth, soft landing instead of an abrupt, precipitous skeddadle. He may have meant "glide path."
Hey,why not a draft only among those of service age who publicly support the "war".
I know,I know--then there would be virtually no supporters left among those of service age.
That's my real desire.
Woodward the milquetoast was pretty gentle with his buddy Brooks, but I'm glad there was somebody on that ridiculously right-wing panel to point out lies.
Capabilty Jones @ 62:
Simple for the simple-minded maybe. So because Bush started the war anything we do now is on his head only? Nice way to dodge any responsibility. This isnt just on Bush and how we extricate ourselves is as important as how we got in.
Brooks the great humanitarian. So concerned about what might happen. How come him and his puke associates did not have that same concern from the beginning?
love how the video gets cut off in mid sentence, making the last 20 seconds useless.
!
I suggested it... and you listened?
I
oops... part of my post got borked due to symbols...
Bottom was supposed to read...
I love C&L! =P
That just might be the next move they make and hit the embassy. He sure has a point
Okay, lets just assume Brooks' 10k figure is correct. The Lancet report said in Oct. 2006 that their estimate was 650k. I'm willing to use that (nearly two year old) number for today's argument. If we've been in Iraq since March 20, 2003 then we've been there for 52 months. 650k/52 is 12,500. The way I see it, by that logic, pulling out would be a dramatic statistical improvement.
P.S. Please read this as snark. I'm really not as crass and grotesque as these Talking AssHeads. Honest.
1) Turn Iraq over to the UN (like Levin-Reed said)
2) Convict and imprison Bush for lying us into it. We can't afford to not make an example of him.
Brooks doesn't have to make up s**t, he's already full of it.
It is touching that Fred Barnes has suddenly become concerned with the moral issue of flowing blood in Iraq. I'll be a believer when he concerns his moral sensibilities with the flow of war profits.
If our government really cared about the "average" (Iraqi or otherwise) citizen, then why are there still so many Katrina exiles? Why are so many "average" people dying in Darfur and around the world, especially in places that do not have oil reserves?
It has been estimated that when you factor in the costs of this war, you are paying an additional $4.00 per gallon for gas, and rising. In addition, the GAO cites the DoD as the single largest energy user in the world. Likewise, their carbon footprint. The biggest irony to me is the lack of sensible economics in this military industrial endeavor. Its Catch-22. Milo Minderbinder buying eggs for $.05, selling them for $.03 and making a $.02 cent profit. I finally understand Mr. Heller's intended satire in that regard. Obviously, the taxpayer is making up the difference through the war costs and oil subsidies. I would also suggest that we may likely reach the carbon-induced climate tipping point long before we actually see any energy benefits from our Persian Gulf folly...
The sorry fact is most people just don't get it because they, for reasons I cannot fathom, think Starbucks and the Sapranaos are good examples of moral behavior. Oh, please. The Revolution in America, if it ever comes again will be accomplished, as always by those at the bottom of the economic struggle. And, as always, will only benefit everyone else.
Login or Register to post comments.